Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 64 (9159 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 915,012 Year: 2,269/9,624 Month: 114/1,588 Week: 43/267 Day: 3/40 Hour: 1/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 50 of 1075 (512786)
06-20-2009 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 2:34 PM

Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
For exampel, have you ever read a science magazine lately ? When i read about evolution i often get the impression that every time some new fosil is found significant changes are being made in the " tree of life"
Here's your problem. You are getting your "information" from popular magazines.
A magazines job FIRST and FOREMOST is to SELL MAGAZINES. If they ran a story that read: "Recent fossil discovery just yet another confirming piece of evidence" it wouldn't sell.
So, EVERY STORY is the "newest", "best", "rule changing", "controversial", etc etc etc
You get the impression that it changes the tree of life because they want you to get that impression.
It doesn't. There have been EXTREMELY FEW fossils which have significantly changed the tree in any meaningful way.
From time to time we'll find a new branch off one of the main branches - interesting, but no big deal.
The recreations of human apes in science magazines are intentionally made to look more like apes the older it is.
Stop and think for a minute.
You are arguing that ALL fossils are either 100% human or 100% not-human. To say that they are made to look "more like apes" means that they must first look SOMETHING LIKE apes.
If cReationists are right, then there should be NOTHING in common between human and ape remains. All human remains should be distinctly 100% human just like you are today, and all ape remains should be distinctly 100% ape just like chimps and gorillas of today.
There should be NO middle ground whatsoever.
Neanderthals are another exampel of how you can not trust in the evolutionist recreation of human apes. The first Neander thal fosils were made very ape like. But it turned out the fosil this was based on belonged to a deformed old man.
The first Neanderthal fossils were from a man with severe arthritis, and this was 150ish years ago, when the field of study was brand new.
The people who evaluated the fossils CORRECTLY characterized him has brow ridged, stooped and lumbering.
Illustrations made him look like what we refer to today as cartoon cavemen. They, however, did NOT look like apes.
As we uncovered MORE Neanderthal skeletons, the mistakes were corrected.
That's because science is self correcting. Meanwhile, Creationists are stuck with the same mistakes they were handed at the begining of their fairy tale.
How'd they get the T-Rexs to stay on the Ark for a month without eatting the gazelles?
Another exampel of the evolutionists wishing thoughts were Archapitetus, Said to be the first walking ape, But this was only based upona few fragments from the jaw. Do you think this was enough o recreate a walking human ape ?
WTF is "archapitetus"? A search on the word only shows THIS thread.
Let's pretend you didn't make that word up and proceed.
The jaw connects to the skull. In an animal which walks erect, the spinal cord enters into the base of the skull as opposed to in the rear of the skull. (your spine is directly under you, your dogs spine is behind him)
With the jaw bone, you can determine how and where the jaw attaches to the skull and how it opens. This can tell you whether or not the skull was above or infront of the spine and therefore whether or not the creature walked erect.
Obviusly in theese cases plus the piltdown and the new guinnea man, Alot of wishing was involved. The evolutionist tried to form the evidence to make it look like they wanted. This was not scientific.
If scientists were forming the evidence to make it what they wanted, then how do you know Piltdown was a fake? Why would scientists expose it?
They wouldn't.
However, since Piltdown disagreed with all the other fossils in both location and development, it became apparent that it DIDN'T conform to how we "wanted" the evidence.
THAT'S how Piltdown was exposed - it DIDN'T fit the evidence.
That's EXACTLY the opposite of your claim.
YOu have to really try to be 100% wrong on something.
The rest of your post is just nonsense about what you're "afraid" of and how little you know about math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 2:34 PM Doubletime has not replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 232 of 1075 (621101)
06-23-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Mazzy
06-23-2011 2:31 PM

I think evo theory relies on disappearances more than you suggest. For example there is no Lucy, no Ardi, no homo erectus or anything else in between here today, just us humans and the apes. They look fairly distinct to me.
What your research tells you is that humans are not related to any species of ape alive today. Hence the evolutionary need for all the intermediates to have gone extinct. This is all a branching thing, Right? Yet no other group is half human. Even isolated tribes are fully human, including pygmies.
There are three factors you are not taking into consideration.
First, there are just as many extinct ape missing links for pre-gorillas, pre-chimps, pre-orangs. It's not like there were gorillas, chimps and orangs walking around with Lucy and we're the only one's that changed. ALL these groups have been evolving and leaving behind extinct branches in their wake.
Second, fully modern humans are extremely intolerant of competition. We kill off competitors at an alarming rate. That goes for other apex predators, but it also goes for other groups of humans.
Second (b), we're also extremely xenophobic and fail to see anything which is slightly different as being like us. The Dutch settlers in Africa kind and ate "bush monkeys" - or as you would call them today PEOPLE.
Third, depending on how you classify humans, you could argue that there are different groups. True Africans are pure homo sapiens, while Europeans still carry Neanderthal DNA, and in New Guinea something like 15% of the genome is from the new group discovered out of Siberia.
The mouse deer swims in water to escape prey, and for this reason will have some aquatic traits. It has nothing to do with morphing into a whale.
Escaping predation is less of a factor in evolution than exploiting new resources. Escaping predators will refine characteristics within a group more often than it will lead to new groups.
However, a group of rats that come to a new island where there is fruit on the ground and nuts up in the trees will likely end up splitting into two different groups each specializing in one of these niches.
In the case of whales, these were semi-aquatic mammals which were exploiting aquatic resources - that is what drove their evolution.
When you look at the fossils and compare them to the skeleton of a crocodile, that's what Ambulocetus is. Ambulocetus is a variety of crocodile, and nothing more.
To the uneducated who are giving the bones a completely superficial glance, maybe.
However, there are specific things you can look at that can make a distinction.
I'll use a specific example citing a different group of animals. Beavers, mice, gerbals, rabbits and capybara are all rodents. Shrews, hedgehogs and moles are not.
Moles, shrews and mice clearly look a lot more like one another than mice look like capybaras.
But, size and shape are not the only things you look at.
All rodents have teeth than continue to grow. It's their most defining characteristic.
Sort of like, all birds have feathers and only birds have feathers - therefore bats are no birds even though they have wings.
Get it?
Crocodiles are reptiles. Ambulocetus was not a reptile. It's legs are in the wrong position, it's teeth are the wrong kind.
Two things can look superficially alike and not be related. That's why specialists pay so much attention to the bones.
So you say all life is intermediate. Do you think Gould was a flip? He maintains that species go through long periods of stasis and then change and invented PE to explain the fossil record. The change is generally associated with a totally different kinds that appears not related at all, just like Indohyus and ambulocetus natans.
Just because everything is intermediate doesn't mean there has to be a steady state of change.
When new resources become available, or old ones disappear, then change happens more rapidly because those animals which don't change, don't thrive.
Ant-eaters don't change much. That's because ants and termites have been around forever. They are a food source which will never go away. Unless they face some new competition or a change in their food supply, ant-eaters are perfectly suited to do what they do. No force is driving their change.
The genomic bottlenecks that are required to explain the lack of human genetic diversity have been sunk with the finding of the same species represented alive and well after many catastrophes including Toba and KT.
Surviving a disaster as a species does not mean that all members survived. If a comet were to hit NYC and only 100 people survived, they would not perfectly represent the genetic diversity which is currently in NYC.
"The overall picture is that the main response to major environmental changes is individualistic movement and changes in abundance, rather than extinction or speciation. In other words, the connection between environmental change and evolutionary change is weak, which is not what might have been expected from Darwin's hypothesis."
That statement misses the point
For example, "individualistic movement". How exactly to plants leave an area? Or how about animals which live on an island? How does any species leave "shrinking arctic snowcover"?
Changes in abundance means a change in the niches which can be exploited by a particular species. That DRIVES evolution, it doesn't contradict it.
For me the obvious and most parsinomous reason why there are no ape men around today is because mankind did not evolve from apes.
That doesn't come close to addressing issues like ERVs, genetic similarities, the fossil record, etc.
It strikes me that you are drawing your conclusions based on a complete unwillingness to learn the facts rather than an assessment of the facts.
Let me guess, you're very religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Mazzy, posted 06-23-2011 2:31 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by DBlevins, posted 06-23-2011 6:31 PM Nuggin has not replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 285 of 1075 (621274)
06-24-2011 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by DBlevins
06-24-2011 5:17 PM

Re: more evolved / less evolved
What does more 'more derived' mean to you?
If it is a replacement phrase for 'more evolved' then I'm not sure you understand it's role in cladistics.
In "more evolved" the implication (intentional or not) is that something is better than something else. This isn't actually the case in real evolution, but since the term has been coopted into common usage, it's hard to keep a true perspective.
When we say something is "more derived", it's a little easier to look at it as a math problem - "How many steps difference is there between A and G?"
Ideally, they would mean the same thing, but it's easier to use different terms to assure understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 5:17 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 8:33 PM Nuggin has not replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 286 of 1075 (621278)
06-24-2011 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 1:28 PM

Re: More evolved?
Darls at the risk of being disrespectful you are free to consider your self an ape and no different than a chimp. I on the other hand reserve the right to say that my reasoning and perceptual abilities are very different to that of an ape.
Except that they aren't. Your reasoning is different from a chimp or a gorilla or an orang. Those are specific species. Your reasoning is not different from an ape. "Apes" are a group. Humans are a member of that group.
It takes an evolutionists to line up a 5 primates, including humans, and say they cannot tell the difference and that the human is not the odd one out. This is a simple game really that most children over the age of 7 years can conceptualise and achieve successfully.
If I line up 5 humans, 4 white and 1 black - will a child pick the black as the "odd one out"?
How about 4 tall people and 1 dwarf?
How about 4 men and 1 woman?
You're getting your grouping wrong.
Line up a gorilla, a human, a chimp, an orang and a cat. THEN ask the child which is the odd one out.
Replace the cat with a deer, then a fox, then a fish, then a bear, then a dolphin...
I bet the kid lumps the human in with the rest of the apes every single time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:28 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:26 PM Nuggin has replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 287 of 1075 (621281)
06-24-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 1:41 PM

Re: More evolved?
One of the reasons I do not frequent here much is because I am unabe to post pictures, while others can.
I had this problem when I first started. Try using the "peek" button on the bottom of a post with pictures. It will reveal the source code the people use when doing so.
I'd type in the code to demonstrate, but it wouldn't appear as text since it's designed not to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:41 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 6:15 PM Nuggin has not replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 288 of 1075 (621283)
06-24-2011 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 1:41 PM

Re: More evolved?
Do please source some pictures of the FOSSIL of ambulocetus natans and a picture of a crocodile fossil and you will see they are almost identical. Once again common sense must leave the buiding when discussing TOE. Rather than theorise natans is a variety of crocodile they have 'poofed' it into some intermediate that just looks like a crocodile.
That's just it, they aren't "almost identical"
They look superficially alike to an uneducated observer.
But details ARE important.
Oklahoma looks superficially like a frying pan. There are some fundamental differences between the two if you know what to look for.
This is a 100 million year old croc fossil. Notice that like modern crocs (and all other reptiles with legs) the legs jut out at the side. There's no "shoulder blade" or "hip bone".
Here's amblo:
Not the shoulder blades?
If you look at a thousand different croc fossils from any period in time, not one of them will have the shoulder blades.
That's just ONE of many features which distinguish the two.
Notice also the complete lack of a neck on a crocodile. Ditto all other lizards. Notice the neck on Amblo. That's a second feature easily made out from these images.
Imagine how many more we could point out if were had the two in front of us and could walk around?
Don't let your lack of knowledge mislead you into thinking that other people are as ignorant about a topic. Just because you can't distinguish two things which are roughly similar in shape, it doesn't mean those things are identical.
Now I will also remind you of the misrepresentations put forward for Neanderthal the ape man. It suited your evo sketch artists to represent Neanderthal this way. You had heaps of fossils also and still Neanderthal was an ape man. With all the science and fluffing around that is what these 'smart' ones came up with.
Neanderthal was never presented as an "ape man". There was some initial confusion because the first mostly complete skeleton happened to have arthritis, so the first sketches showed him hunched over. That image became the common cultural concept of a caveman.
The image was actually fairly accurate as far as posture goes for that one individual. It just wasn't accurate for all.
However, with DNA retrieved from Neanderthal his has 'poofed' into a human not unlike us In fact many scientists classify Neanderthal as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. So it was not the fossils that made neanderthal human, it was not your scientists that could work this out from the fossils. The representation changed as a result of the DNA sequencing.
Neanderthal was alternately classified as either "Homo Neanderthalensus" or "Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensus" long before there was DNA evidence recovered.
Non- Africans carry something like 8% of Neanderthal DNA. Clearly they were able to interbreed with us.
Nothing has "poofed" one way or another.
I note that I clearly spoke to the fossils/skeleton of natans being similar to a modern day crocodile. I wonder why you did not post these up? Answer: I am correct.
I didn't realize that we were required to provide you with pictures until you asked for them.
I have done so now.
Answer: You are extremely wrong.
Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:41 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:36 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 331 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 4:59 PM Nuggin has replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 290 of 1075 (621285)
06-24-2011 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:02 PM

Re: More evolved?
The topic is why are there no human apes alive today.
There are. Humans.
This is an aside to the fact that indeed primates have been ideologicaly separated as we refer to us as human and mankind and the animal kingdom primates as apes.
Except that that's false. When you say "apes", you are technically referring to all of the great apes, including humans.
How you use a word in your every day speech doesn't really have anything to do with the actual definition of the word.
Take "Kiwi" for example. No one is ACTUALLY saying that NZrs, tiny furry fruit and a flightless bird are all one species.
Biblical creationists know the answer to why. God wanted to and did.
And that claim is as valid as the claims made by the Abos, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Aztecs, the Greeks, the Vikings.... and on and on and on.
Science, on the other hand, provides actual evidence. That's what sets us apart from mythology.
You can not win a debate between Christian Creationism and Viking Creationism. They are both equally valid/invalid and use the EXACT same evidence to back it up.
Turkana Boy is human, the others, especially the one on display at the museum in Michagan, are apes.
Well, since I'm not in Michigan I miss the reference. However, Turkana boy is either Homo Erectus or Homo Eragaster.
Anything that starts "Homo" is "Human". They are different branches of humans, they are separated by millions of years, but they are all "humans".
Also note scientists found evidence that Toba was not so catastrophic in 2009 and 2010 researchers found there was no need for the until now required genetic bottleneck to explain the lack of human variation.
No, you are misunderstanding. There IS a bottleneck. Whether or not Toba is responsible for that bottleneck may be debatable, but the fact that a bottleneck exists is not.
So there is no reason why some of the ape midpsecies and sister species to not have survived till today looking fairly apey and not real smart.
Yes, there is. Competition. Primarily from us. Humans hunt and kill anything we consider a threat. That even includes other humans.
Biblical Creationists have the most parsinomous explanation
Your use here of "parsimonious" leads me to believe you mean "easiest" or "most efficient" or "simple".
If your criteria for accuracy is simple answers, then explain to me why this statement is wrong:
"Automobiles work because angels live in the engine".
No need for combustion. No need for physics. No need for torque, or drive trains, or spark plugs.
If your car breaks down, take it to church.
Clearly "cars run on angels" is WAY easier than explaining the various working pieces of the modern engine. Therefore it must be right.
I guess all the car companies have been lying to us all this time, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:02 PM Mazzy has not replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 292 of 1075 (621288)
06-24-2011 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:20 PM

Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
What supports creation is based on research such as that by scientists like John C Sanford on entropy and other creationist dating methods and research. These are based on models not unlike yours but different assumption are used in the set up. All models are based on an assumption and use probabilities as insertion values. That is why it is referred to as theoretical modelling and not factual modelling.
The problem with Creationist "models" is that they make multiple assumptions which are both unfounded and unsupportable.
For example:
If we ASSUME that radioactive decay is not stable, then we can change the dates given by looking at the uranium evidence to a younger date.
Is there evidence that radioactive decay is not stable? No.
Is there an explanation as to why all observations of radioactive decay which have ever been done by any scientist anywhere show that it is absolutely stable? No.
What about the inevitable question that arises from this assumption - "If the decay rate was faster, then more radiation must have come off quicker, resulting in more heat. What happened to that heat?"
Answer: Well, if we ALSO ASSUME that the heat vanished without melting the entire Earth, then it's okay.
Is there any evidence to support this vanishing heat? No.
Is there an explanation as to why we should ignore one of the laws of thermodynamics? No.
And EVERY model the Creationists come up with has this exact same problem.
"Why is start light traveling from stars billions of light years away able to reach us if the Universe is only a few thousand years old?"
Well, if we ASSUME that the speed of light is variable....
I would think that of all the branching that must have occurred over the last 8 million years that some of the now extinct branches should have survived
BILLIONS of branches have survived. Just not the ones that went extinct.
Your statement above sounds a lot like: "Given how many people started out running the marathon, I would have expected more than one winner".
Why are there none stuck in a evolutionary transitional form?
Everything is in a transitional form.
However you need long evolutionary distances and all intermediates to have not survived to explain the clear distinction between a human and chimp, cat and dog, whale, crocodile and mouse deer.
You are asking for intermediaries between groups which are not descended from one another.
Humans are not descended from chimps.
Humans and chimps are descended from a joint ancestor in the distant past.
Your and your 5th cousin are descended from a great great great great grandparent. That person is not alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:20 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:44 PM Nuggin has replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 295 of 1075 (621291)
06-24-2011 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:26 PM

Re: More evolved?
the most obvious physical trait man is not a hairy critter.
Mole Rat:
Lack of hair does not mean that the mole rat is not a rodent. It is.
Likewise, just because humans don't have THICK DARK HAIR does not mean that they are not apes.
By the way, this is a human:
You need intermediates that have disappeared. What happened to them all that they did not microadapt as observed in nature and the lab and survive in a less primitive hairy form of ape man somewhere in the wild?
I've explained this already, but I'll try again.
Evolution trends toward the exploitation of a niche. If some food source or living space is unused, then a species will fill that niche.
Humans fill niches like champs. There is virtually nowhere on Earth where people aren't living.
As such, there's no room for any other sub-human apes to live. If it's available, we took it and killed anything that challenged us.
You keep asking why these things aren't around as if the history of humanity was not one of brutally killing anything and everything we could get our hands on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:26 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:52 PM Nuggin has replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 297 of 1075 (621294)
06-24-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:36 PM

Re: More evolved?
You should also post one of a croc swimming which looks just like Natans with a little difference in the skull.
No. YOU should post a picture of a croc skeleton swimming. It's your argument, not mine.
I notice that you FAILED to address my points about the shoulder blades and the neck.
Why? Are these terms unfamiliar to you? Or is it that it's inconvenient to address evidence which defeats your argument?
Repeating the same point after it's been disproved is pretty typical Creationist behavior. It's dishonest.
The question that comes to mind is this: Since you must know that your technique is dishonest, it must mean that you know you are wrong. After all, if you thought you were right, you would strive to prove you were right instead of dodging the points.
So, given that we know that you are wrong, and your actions demonstrate that you know you are wrong, what exactly is your goal here?
Not all mid species were exposed to exactly the same environment or anything, yet not one hairy species managed to survive. Sounds like a fairytale to me.
Every single potential other human species, including ones which survived for VERY LONG periods of time (ie Neanderthals) were exposed to the EXACT SAME THING: Us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:36 PM Mazzy has not replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 300 of 1075 (621298)
06-24-2011 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:44 PM

Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
Creationist modelling and assumptions are no worse.
Really? Creationist models state that there has never been any change whatsoever. That things which are alive today were alive exactly as they are now in the past. That bunnies and T-Rex were both on the Ark. That modern cows and sabertooth tigers were walking side by side.
How exactly does this square with the fossil record? The DNA? Common logic?
You live in Australia. Have you ever been outside?
Notice that just about everything there is a marsupial? Notice that aside from possums there's virtually no marsupials anywhere else?
How exactly does the Christian model explain the mass migration of marsupials from the Middle East to Australia after the flood?
How about the lemurs to Madagascar?
You seriously think that "Duh, well, a wizard did it" is a valid argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:44 PM Mazzy has not replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 301 of 1075 (621299)
06-24-2011 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:52 PM

Re: More evolved?
I am sorry but that is rubbish. There are plenty of areas on the planet only gotton to over the last 200 years eg Australia and there are no ape people here or in Africa or anywhere else.
Do they teach Australian history in Australia? Or is that just taught here in the states?
You REALLY think that humans got to Australia and Africa ~200 years ago?
Are you saying that whites are human and anyone of color is not? Well, then there's your answer. There's plenty of "non-humans" (by your standard) all over the place.
If niches went on towards humanity, the ones left behind still had no reason to perish.
Have you met any humans? We don't even let OTHER HUMANS keep something we want. The history of the world is one group of humans showing up someplace and taking it from another group of humans.
If, let's say Hawaii, were home to some other homonid species. You REALLY think that humans would show up, see them and say "Sorry, nevermind" and leave? Hell no. Humans kill. It's what we're good at.
Surely if evolution were true some part-ape tribe should still be around
There are several apes around still. Gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangs and humans. All of them descended from earlier forms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:52 PM Mazzy has not replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 307 of 1075 (621306)
06-24-2011 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by PsychMJC
06-24-2011 7:06 PM

Re: More evolved?
I didn't know their educational system was as broken as ours.
Even more brokener.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by PsychMJC, posted 06-24-2011 7:06 PM PsychMJC has seen this message but not replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 308 of 1075 (621307)
06-24-2011 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Portillo
06-24-2011 7:21 PM

the difference between science and media
One thing I notice about human ape research is that every year it is proclaimed that the missing link has been found. What happened to the one they found last year?
Are you aware the newspapers and magazines are interested in getting people to read their articles? That TV shows are interested in getting people to watch?
Scientists don't declare "missing link found", news outlets do. Why? Because it attracts readers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Portillo, posted 06-24-2011 7:21 PM Portillo has not replied

Member (Idle past 2468 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005

Message 315 of 1075 (621319)
06-25-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Portillo
06-24-2011 11:37 PM

I dont see whats so dumb about (the idea that humans were created by an alien race), considering sciences explore the possibility of extraterrestrial life and also panspermia.
Well, let's go over it.
First, panspermia is the idea that the original extremely basic building blocks of life arose elsewhere and ended up here. That's not the same thing.
Second, there is a TON of evidence supporting human evolution and, for that matter, all evolution of life on Earth.
Third, assuming you disregard the evidence of evolution occurring on Earth (presumably because you disbelieve in evolution) and go with the claim that OTHER life came and made life here -- you STILL need to explain where that OTHER life came from.
You've blundered into infinite regression. Either ALL other life arose from OTHER life infinitely back so that there is no beginning. -or- At some point SOME life SOMEWHERE must have evolved, in which case you are accepting evolution and have lost your reason to make the argument in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Portillo, posted 06-24-2011 11:37 PM Portillo has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024